Federal judges have not taken kindly to Righthaven's "sue your way to success …

Share this story

Nevada's homegrown copyright troll, Righthaven, started life with a plan to save the newspaper business through infringement lawsuits—but nearly staggering incompetence has left the company on the receiving end of fine after fine from federal judges. Today, Righthaven was hit with a new fine for $116,718 in legal fees and $2,770 in costs.

The case, Righthaven vs. Thomas DiBiase, was another of the small-time infringement claims brought by Righthaven. The firm generally used the lawsuits to extract settlements of a few thousand dollars, but DiBiase refused to settle up. Instead, he lawyered up--and managed to get the case dismissed on June 22 based on the fact that Righthaven didn't actually own the copyrights over which it was suing people. (See initial comment about "staggering incompetence.")

This meant that Righthaven might owe attorney fees to DiBiase's legal team. Federal judge Roger Hunt of Nevada today concluded that the $116,718 fee request from that team was "reasonable and necessary," and he slapped Righthaven with its largest fine to date.

And the bad news keeps coming. In a separate case, Righthaven vs. Newsblaze, attorneys for Randazza Legal Group—which has already won several smaller awards from Righthaven but has had some trouble getting paid—today filed a sanctions motion against a key Righthaven counsel, Shawn Mangano.

The sanctions motion contends that "Righthaven’s litigation campaign in this case (and in this district) has gone beyond zealous advocacy and has become vexatious, unnecessarily multiplicative, and purposely wasteful," and it asks for $11,925.50 in fines. The basic claim: Mangano has kept making legal arguments in Righthaven's many cases that have been thoroughly litigated and shot down in other cases.

Whether Mangano is controlling this litigation or merely following Righthaven’s Svengali-like orders, he has multiplied proceedings in this district unreasonably, contrary to clear precedent, and in bad faith (or at least recklessly). As counsel of record in every case where Righthaven’s claims have been dismissed for want of standing, he is aware of the settled precedent of this District, which is consistent with the law of the Ninth Circuit. For Mangano to still consistently argue against these standing orders and judgments, seeking either inconsistent treatment of Righthaven’s standing from this District, or to inflict delay and financial harm onto Righthaven’s defendants, is an unreasonable and vexatious use of the adversarial process.